TABLES.3 Evaluation of the Ruggedhness of the Filter Bag Technique Using Youden’s Ruggedness Test with Seven Variables at Two Level (Overall comparivn Level Level? No. Variables te ap a ee 1 Sanplesize oa-09 T1329 2 Prey time th) a5 3 mm 227-003 3 Prey temperature FO) 6 ww 22% 231005 4 atraeton te (mi) 5 35 mn 35-007 5 Extraction empertue('C) 89 34 ns 226 006 Posty ime rin) 5 35 moe = 30am 7 Prey time eC) 96 12 mn 26-006 Significant a the 5% level dif = oat Chicken thighs, cooked Hot dors comm No. ip afi op Said ai 1 Sample size 3aor 3403 OW 456) a7) aT “on 2 Prey time 3399 404 0054569 45.63.06. 1420 on 3 Prey temperature 3405 3399-005 4567 45.64 0031430 009 4 Batretion time 3aoe 3400-004 5604571, OTT “on 5 Extraction temperate 340s 3399-006 45644567 003145, ot 6 Posty time 402 3402000 45.66 «4565. 011431 -on 7 Predey ime 2396 4080134563 4569006423 0.06 Significant at the 5% evel di. 016 042 027 Soybeans? Potato chips Catleeed No. ie Gopi cafe cap 1 Samplesize moe tai Or) eae SMSO OT 2 Prey time 21582177018 3645364302 3.29325 -.08 3 Prey temperature fle 2720103645 B64 OT 3313-08 4 xtation time diay 3188 O41 4643-3646 OH 3.263.290 5 eration temperature nay 2186 03836423647 0S 3.24 330006 6 Posty time miss 2187 0038453643 toe OD 7 Prey time 21752160015 3643 3645 OH 3.28 330s Sgnifcan at the 5% eel if = 028 on 027 Pauly feed og food Ground beet No paid cai 1 Samplesize waa aay OS~SCOOS~C«SC SSCS OL 2 Prey time wey er 3 Predy temperature ai aks: CSS OOH: OT 4 aration time re ee 5 Extaction temperature a re a ee © Posty time fa 1012396 4.00 .OF 3594 369-00 7 Pry time 43043 on2 392 Ako 0853699 Significant atthe 5% level i= 032 0.26 016 “eo eve Cap. igh a fet on a "Soybeans wee sped bre ping *s yew yoreuoy Py {RUA} BUV 65 ga WONNY UL© Ri Komarck ea TABLE 44 Evaluation ofthe Precision and Relative Accuracy of the Filter Bag Technique ‘Compared with the Conventional Method# because of the more extensive replication. The analysis of five ‘was replicated four times in 13 laboratories. An average pooled SD of S, = 0.28 sion, The FBT values were in good agreement with the all five sample types. The results also indicate that the Youden’s Ruggedness Test ‘was a good predictor of the laboratory reproducibility FBT Collaborative Study. A summary of te collaborative FBT results for the 28 samples as 56 blind duplicates is presented in Table 4.6. The results indicated that there was excellent agreement among laboratories analyzing the samples with the FBT. The reproducibility between laboratories was Sq = 0.43 and the repeatability The ANKOMS® Fat Analyzer 6 Fitor Bag Technique Fat) P= 0.9906 Y= 1,001X~ 0.046 > 5 © © © » 0 8 4 4 ‘Conventional Analysis (a) Fig 4.11. Regression analysis of the accuracy ofthe FBT analysis of fail relative to the conventional method in 22 samples each replicated five times. ‘AOCS Ba 3-38 and AOAC 920.39. The Regression Plot (Fig. 4.12) illustrates the ‘excellent correlation (R? = 0,990) between the AOCS Certified laboratories and other AOCS official methods due to the multiple grindings and extractions that are part of the method. Although the high temperatures of the FBT greatly accelerate the extraction kinetics, further experimentation is required t0 determine whether extended periods of time will remove matrix-bound oil without further grinding.TABLE 4S. ‘Comparison of the Conventional Method withthe Filter Bag Techaique Performed in 13 Collaborating Laboratories on 5 Samples Ground bet Cheese cus Soybeans Whole com Horse feed Fiter bag method ‘verge 8 “Averge SD “Average SD Avenge SD Aveage SD. inbortoey 1 mz oo 6A tas ak a. 32 nz 020 2 mA 02) 4A «O18 Ton, 33 7 ole 3 214 060403055 2080s. 218 008 4 23000016 «417-3038 ns os 5 21 02410 96 0a 30 m1 036 6 ae 025394 0S4 208 ats 23 010 7 28 0% 4604633 21 008 8 224 04s 416025, 10a. ny an 9 27° 02515009 0 war 236 10 228 oot = 207,205 one 3.1 24 oz u ms on «a 02 m0 036 33 ri 035 2 290s} 408 = 027,209 0352 218 a7 a 27 0% 9218 wa 2236 5 031 03 oat 020 Ey 056, 080 on oat ver 2a 412 209 33 18 Conventional method average 730 028405 1.00 «20700834222 S05 eo aloe reproduc les, epi fhe 0,5 rpraducby ihe, TABLES Results ofthe Intemational Collaborative Study of the Reproducibility ofthe Filer Bag Technique with Twenty Eight Samples ‘Analyzed as Blind Duplicates i ee Lab. Rep Faved Tage O08 OV ers eo oes et oe a eee ca ee ge ray) one sade a Ge le 7 ay 2 ase te ae ie inn ite tou co) sh ge St (GN ane rae ee aa) 2h) 3 92 52 NS 38921 AS GOS GA 27S HD 29195 31 $y as 8 383383 32 B23 2B 22 03. 2 $3 86 28 393 15 38 R133 52 2D 6S 2D 19199 4 1 Se 90 20 392 «14 «30-3533 59-24 GO HBT eg ge moe er ee oct me ool ee te eal 7 ee a Be coe ns iat tio a ee a eat al te | a7e cee eect cee ane set ce se 0a) Sele og 88 ams) ana ee eee es eae syne ee foal 29k se se aie ae 2 ae etek eee ae seat ae a cet sale 1 oe ane 2a) aa Pooh eee 2 33 85 m7 387 «1S 3232 SH 2 GDF 2399 a ot St 90 3 eS TSS 13S 1S 57 HB 2B 205 2S) 88 82 256 183227 3H SA 2G P29 197 9 1 e292 Ny 8 17 31 35 32 59 29° 63 Be 22 206 ese an Se ot a2 os ee al es ol aa 20 re eee ne ty sae 0) aan me 56 ae i fee ea 203) eas faa i aye oe 9S ee st est ft) ae ay a ae ee eh oe 20) eit ree st ad, se | SS) on ee akon ase teal 3 Eo 83 2 os 173d) BSS 2825S B07 2 1 62 83 ms 33-192 AH 21 BT BF 03 2 ei 62 6 383 21 43 37 30°55 4B G9 RH 1B 200 (Continued 2 ye yorewoy ry {22,209 14 og ONY ML °